The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

I agree with DR here. While your statement is certainly true, it is by no means a reaction that is unique to Obama. In fact, it is a common reaction of most people concerning a US president. Reagan was so popular that if he said that the sun rose in the west, a Zogby poll would come out the next day indicating that 60% of Americans thought the sun rose in the west. (I still believe that Reagan is the only president who has been hurt by the Constitutional Amendment limiting a president to two terms. He's the only one since that Amendment passed that like would have won a third term in office. It doesn't get much more worshipful than that.)

 

Actually, I can think of a number of local politicians whom that hasn't happened with. They're all small-time, though.

The fact that it has happened to others doesn't make it any less disturbing. It's unhealty for anyone to show that much addoration to anyone who isn't a deity. The issue I have, though, is that I have seen a LOT of it. I didn't see a lot of it under Bush. Some, yes, but not a lot. I saw a good bit under Clinton (a much more charismatic guy), but still not as much as Obama. And actually, I have heard people say Obama was their messiah or the Second Coming, or their deliverer or savior. It's usually middle-aged poor black women, don't ask me why.

 

I think it was the importance of the last election cycle. Middle-aged white women thought they had their "deliverer" too. And so did some conservative white males who had never seen an attracitve woman holding a big rifle before (or so you woud think).

http://www.popcrunch.com/sarah-palin-picture-gallery/

 

It also doesn't make it remarkable, either. The 'Obamessiah' meme is absurd. Of course 80-year-old poor black ladies think he's their savior. They never thought they'd live to see the day when a black man would ascend to the Presidency. 40-year-old gun-toting upper-middle-class suburban white men showed the very same sycophantic devotion to Bush.* What's their excuse?

* ...and if you didn't see that under Bush, frankly, you must have had a bag over your head.

 

A lot of the "Obama is the messiah" viewpoints come from watching the mainstream media fawn over him (particularly MSNBC). If you've watched the Chris Matthews "tingle up my leg" clip, you'll know what I mean. It might've been the same way with Bush, but nowhere near the degree it currently is with Obama.

 

That's hardly the mainstream media. Those guys are almost as liberal as I am, God bless them. The mainstream is really more the plain vanilla news outlets, like CBS, NBC or ABC. MSNBC is the equailvalent of FOX News only from the other side. You are correct that MSNBC does tend to "fawn" over Obama, but not as badly as FOX fawned over GWB and Cheney. I mean, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Michelle Malkin and Billo? Of course MSNBC still has four years left to go with Obama....

 

Absolutely right - MSNBC is about as mainstream as Fox News. I classify both of those channels as "entertainment news". Both of them are heavily slanted news sources, neither of which can be considered impartial. Both channels parrot out the talking points of one party while generally making fun of the other party. Regardless of your political leanings, you'll likely find one of the channels to be funny and entertaining, and the other you'll find dishonest and aggrevating. (Of course, the classification will be reversed depending on whether your are conservative or liberal.) The point is, not only should neither be considered mainstream media, neither should be considered your primary news source. They are good for a hoot, but little else.

 

That's exactly the problem, though. A frightening number of conservatives consider Fox to be "the news." They actually go to guys like Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, and Brit Hume...for information. That's really disturbing.

A few months ago I stayed at a family friend's home in my homestate of Utah, and I wanted to watch a little TV before bed. The friend, retired navy, great man, was getting up to leave and asked what I wanted to watch. I said "oh, just a little of the news, I wanna see what happened today," thinking he'd just tell me what channel the local news was on. Instead, he grabbed the remote, turned it to The O'Reilly Factor, and says "There ya go: the news," without a hint of irony. My last trip a few weeks ago (wedding planning), I stayed in 3 different hotels. Every one of them had Fox News set as the default channel on the TVs in every room I stayed in (and locked the menu so you couldn't change it). Given - this is Utah, reddest state in the union. But it just goes to show you how good a job Fox has done at convincing people they're actually providing a public service. Even more shocking still is how few people can tell the difference between actual journalism and shameless propaganda. MSNBC is just as bad as Fox, but that's only a recent development. MSNBC only became that bad to compete with the Fox News model.

About the best anyone can do is avoid all "analysis," and merely stick to the basic headlines and form their own conclusions. Talking heads try to do your thinking for you.

 

Personally, I've given up on getting my information from cable news. I either go with network news (which tends to cover issues in more depth and with less bias) or, preferably, the print media. That said, I think a difference or two between MSNBC and Fox needs to be pointed out. Fox has an established history not of biased news coverage, but of outright dishonesty in their news coverage. These are the guys who were willing to give Matt Drudge and Ann Coulter jobs. MSNBC, on the other hand, is biased. I haven't seen any outright dishonesty in their coverage, as has been seen (and proven) with Fox. They even have a few conservative voices. One of them (Republican Joe Scarborough) even has his own show. I still nevertheless agree that MSNBC shouldn't be a go-to news source, but they're no Fox "News". Seriously.

 

Why are you lunatics watching television to get your news, anyway?

 

Because we ARE lunatics.

 

Of course, everyone knows to get their news from reading posts at a CRPG website

 

Clearly not everyone, more's the pity.

 

You mean like a newspaper? I guess there are a few of them still around. There are a punch of good news magazines as well, but seeing as how they are weekly (like Newsweek and Time for example), they would prove to be inadequate as an every day news source.

Still, that is really shocking that you like to read newspapers given your age Drew. I didn't think anyone under 45 still read newspapers. (I will buy a paper when I have to travel by plane though - something to read while you travel.)

I actually watch the news to unwind at night. I turn on the 11:00 local news, catch the weather, and then usually head up to bed. I don't think that makes me a "lunatic" though - that or millions of others like me are lunatics too. I would imagine that the news you get from the internet has pretty much the exact same advantages and disadvantages as the TV. Both can be biased, and both provide nearly instantaneous updates (assuming you are watching a news channel like CNN - the Discovery Channel certainly doesn't give you instant updates).

 

http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

I guess warrentless wiretapping isn't so bad after all.

 

You would be entirely incorrect. The TV thinks I'm a goddamn idiot. Every time my roommate has CNN on, my intelligence is insulted. Today's example:

"Obama's objectives in Iraq Visit:
1) Thank the troops
2) (don't recall)
3) Commander in Chief"

note that #3 is verbatim, and precisely how it was displayed on the screen.

 

That's why I watch TV News - for its entertainment value.

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

You made me think of this Dylan classic:

Bobby recorded that in 1965 for "Bringin' it All Back Home." It's good to know that some things never change, even forty-five years later.

 

I was very disappointed in this. I did not like it under Bush, and I still don't like it under Obama.

What is the general consensus about Obama's first trip across the pond?

I would give him an "A" in terms of positive PR, but a "C" for just about everything else. He got some help from the G20 summit regarding the economy, but substantially less than he was originally seeking. Similarly, he got some additional help for the war in Afghanistan, but again, a lot less than what he was hoping for. I cannot call it a failure, as he did get some of what he wanted on both points, but it is a far cry from a resounding success.

 

CNN is showing that the guy who played "Kumar" in the "Harold & Kumar" movies , also Taj in the Van Wilder movies, is joiing Obama's administration. Scary! We need brains, not actors right now...

 

True, but it's not like he's heading a department or anything. He's basically a goodwill ambassador to the entertainment industry and won't have much of a hand in shaping policy. Every administration does this in one form or another. Nothing to get in a twist over.